Why does /r/Communism glorify Stalin, when his policies resulted in millions being killed in gulags?

You're going to have to be a bit more specific. What policies are you referring to? I'm going to guess that it's the purges so I'll try and address that.

Hundreds of thousands of innocent people were killed (the current standing number is 8-900,000), but they were killed under the orders of the head of the NKVD Nikolai Yezhov (the Yezhovshchina is another name given to the Great Terror/Purges). Current evidence shows that Stalin did not know about what Yezhov was doing (he was trying to sow discontent among Soviet citizens with Stalin's leadership) and when Stalin found out, he was tried, he confessed, and was executed.

When Lavrentii Beria was appointed as Ezhov's second-in-command Ezhov and his men understood that Stalin and the Party leadership no longer trusted them. They made one last plot to assassinate Stalin at the November 7, 1938 celebration of the 21st anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. But Ezhov's men were arrested in time. Ezhov was persuaded to resign. An intensive investigation was begun and a huge number of NKVD abuses were uncovered. A great many cases of those tried or punished under Ezhov were reviewed. Over 100,000 people were released from prison and camps. Many NKVD men were arrested, confessed to torturing innocent people, tried and executed. Many more NKVD men were sentenced to prison or dismissed.

Under Beria the number of executions in 1938 and 1940 dropped to less than 1% of the number under Ezhov in 1937 and 1938, and many of those executed were NKVD men, including Ezhov himself, who were found guilty of massive unjustified repression and executions of innocent people.

There's no evidence that shows that Stalin intended or planned any of this. There were lots of conspirators within the USSR and the Party collaborating with Nazis. Stalin's paranoia was pretty justified.

Also, here is a relevant section from bourgeois historian J. Arch Getty (who isn't a Marxist or a communist or even remotely leftist) from his book The Road to Terror: Stalin and the Self-Destruction of the Bolsheviks, 1932-1939:

Although Stalin certainly supported the liquidation of highly placed "spies, wreckers, and enemies" and the promotion of "control from below," there is no reason to believe that he intended for the fusion of the two campaigns to produce the chaos it did. Almost immediately, Moscow began a series of unsuccessful attempts to limit the chaos while continuing to support investigations of highly place 'enemies'. (Getty, Origins of the Great Purges, pp. 178-9) [...]

Taken together, Moscow's statements of December and January suggest attempts to limit grass-roots chaos and repression of the rank and file by panic-stricken party secretaries. The police had been implicitly insulted and criticized in late 1937, particularly when they tried to associate themselves with rank-and-file interests. (188) [...]

On December 8, the press announced that he had been relieved of his duties as head of the NKVD "at his own request." Four days later, the Moscow Regional Court reversed the first of many convictions of former "enemies." The declaration noted that the Supreme Court had not only released five construction engineers but had recognized that the five had actually tried to thwart "real enemies." Ezhov was last seen in public on January 22, 1939, at a memorial ceremony honoring Lenin. After that, he completely disappeared, and his name was never again mentioned in print during Stalin's lifetime. Although some arrests still took place in 1939, nearly all accounts agree that the police operations were essentially over. (189) [...]

It is perhaps ironic that the party democracy and vigilance campaigns were originally intended to improve the functioning of the apparatus. Their catastrophic fusion and mutual reinforcement destroyed what little discipline and order existed in the party. Because both political currents were explicitly populist and antibureaucratic, leaders at all levels were subjected to merciless attack from above and below. But repression and chaos hit the party at all levels. Frightened or malicious party secretaries tried to deflect the heat downward (as they had in the proverka) with rank-and-file expulsions of "enemies." Rank-and-file activists also lashed out at one another as class and personal hatreds were aggravated by the spy scare. (195)

It's not about the way used to reach the confession in this case, sure under torture you'll confess to anything, a confession says nothing about the guilt of the accused, for or against, but if the evidence clearly supported the evidence Yezhov being guilty and independent in the act then who cares if they pulled some nails to get a pretty front page on the pravda?

Is there a country that provides "good" trustworthy confessions according to you? Is it Europe? The USA? Should we trust the CIA and regard the Soviet Union as inherently unreliable? Why? Based on what? Their word? The word of dissidents? Based on Yezhov's terrible work before his arrest which put him in that confession room to begin with? Is it that everybody just knows it's truth?

No. That wiki page sources to Robert Conquest's The Great Terror very frequently, a book who's many claims have been debunked ever since Yeltsin opened the Soviet archives in the 1990's. Even bourgeois historian J. Arch Getty said that the historical research done during the period of the Cold War on the USSR are "products of propaganda — 'research' which it makes no sense to criticize or try to correct in its individual parts, but which must be done all over again from the beginning."

I think it's muchmuchmuch more important we discuss The Holodomor. There's really no excuse for that, and Stalin certainly knew what was going on.

As for the great terror, to be honest I'm not an expert, but is this to say Stalin really didn't notice former officials like Bukharin, Trotsky (a personal opponent of Stalin), and Trotsky's family being targeted and killed in the great terror?

EDIT: I thought this was a sophisticated place for "debate"; not one where we downvote people without explaining our oppositions to their statement.

It's childish, but I understand how much easier it is to angrily click a button than articulate your thoughts to another human being. I forgive you, comrade.

There is no evidence that suggests Stalin intentionally starved Ukrainians. Lots of mainstream historians acknowledge that bad weather is mostly to blame. The kulaks are also partly to blame; they would slaughter livestock and encourage sympathizes to do the same as a reaction to collectivization. Also, keep in mind that that area had been experiencing famine every couple of years for about a millennia. After collectivization, the Holodomor was the last famine in the USSR except for one in the 1940's caused by the Second World War. There's also the fact that Soviet leadership re-routed their small amount of grain reserves to the famished areas.

Until recently both scholarly and popular discussions of the catastrophic famine in the Soviet Union in 1931-1933 invariably have described it as an artificial or "man-made" famine. ... While the intentionalist interpretations of the famine remain widely held, recent research has cast substantial doubt on them. Several studies and document collections have shown conclusively that the famine did not stop at Ukraine's borders, but affected rural and urban areas throughout the Soviet Union, and even the military. Studies based on this evidence, and on a reevaluation of published Soviet statistics, has shown that the grain harvests of 1931 and 1932 must have been much smaller than officially acknowledged. … The fact that a disastrous famine followed the 1932 procurements must have been at least in part the result of a smaller harvest. [...]

Certainly, the harvest decline was not the only cause of the Soviet famine: the regime exported food during the crisis. The amount of grain exported during the peak of the famine in the first half of 1933, however, approximately 220,000 tons, was small, less than 1 percent of the lowest harvest estimates, and the regime was using virtually all the rest of the available harvest to feed people. [...]

The Soviet government did have small reserves of grain, but continually drew these down to allocate food to the population. Since virtually the entire country experienced shortages of food, indicating that the procurement and distribution data are reasonably accurate, clearly the Soviet Union faced a severed shortage, and the most important cause of that shortage has to have been small harvests in 1931 and 1932. [...]

Robert Davies and Stephen Wheatcroft argue that the 1931 and 1932 harvests were small due to drought and difficulties in labor and capital, especially the decline in draft animals. D'Ann Penner, in two studies of the famine in the North Caucasus and Don regions, rejects drought as an important factor in the region's small harvest in 1932 and instead attributes it to peasant resistance, specifically a strike against the Soviet regime. These studies thus represent two contrasting perspectives on the harvest, and therefore on the famine: one focusing on the old Russian agrarian problems of weather and poverty, exacerbated by collectivization and the economic crises of the five-year plan, the other focusing on familiar political aspects, the conflict between the rapacious Soviet regime and the resentful, resistant peasantry. Their studies work from different assumptions and employ different sources: Davies and Wheatcroft relied more on published sources and consider the country as a whole, Penner more on archival materials that focus on one region, albeit an important one. [...]

In this essay I reexamine the harvest of 1931 and especially 1932 on the basis of newly available archival documents and published sources, including some that scholars have never utilized. I show that the environmental context of these famines deserves much greater emphasis that it has previously received: environmental disasters reduced the Soviet grain harvest in 1932 substantially and have to be considered among the primary causes of the famine. I argue that capital and labor were significant but were not as important as these environmental factors, and were in part a result of them. I also demonstrate that the Soviet leadership did not fully understand the crisis and out of ignorance acted inconsistently in reponse to it. I concluded that it is thus inaccurate to descrube the Soviet famine of 1932-1933 as simply an artificial or man-made famine, or otherwise to reduce it to a single cause. Overall, the low harvest, and hence the famine, resulted from a complex of human and environmental factors, an interaction of man and nature, much as most previous famines in history.

The Holodomor (Ukrainian: Голодомор, "Extermination by hunger" or "Hunger-extermination"; derived from 'морити голодом', "to kill by starvation" ) was a famine in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1932 and 1933 that killed estimated 2.5-7.5 million Ukrainians. During the famine, which is also known as the "Terror-Famine in Ukraine" and "Famine-Genocide in Ukraine", millions of citizens of the Ukrainian SSR, the majority of whom were Ukrainians, died of starvation in a peacetime catastrophe unprecedented in the history of Ukraine. Since 2006, the Holodomor has been recognized by the independent Ukraine and many other countries as a genocide of the Ukrainian people by Soviet Union ruled by Stalin.

firstly, criticisms of Stalin relying on alleged death tolls (I.e. the pile of trash known as the Black Book of Communism) are often exaggerated, distorted, or simply wrong. it is no surprise why this is the case. there are of course legitimate criticisms to be made about him, but many feel that Stalin's contributions to Marxism-Leninism are too significant to dismiss him entirely. in my experience I would say most M-Ls critically support him.

I used to buy this argument, but I have personally encountered too many first person accounts to accept this. I have even met people who at the time supported (and currently defend) him, but even they admit what happened.

Eye witness accounts are only good for knowing what experiences people went through. Any kind of number they give is inaccurate unless they went through every single gulag and counted or stole some government files

No they're not, they're anecdotal evidence that needs to be subject to rigorous testing before they can be taken as actual statistical evidence.

Believe it or not, raw state statistics are extremely accurate and indispensable. What the state might draw from them is a different story, but we can't let the immediately unverifiable claims that a person makes be considered fact. These claims are a good basis for investigation, but they're not evidence themselves.

The difference is that Marxism-Leninism developed after Lenin's death and was greatly contributed to by Stalin. It includes ideas other Leninist such as Trotskyists greatly disagree with, like "socialism in one country". I don't think he was really being misleading, since most M-Ls support him maybe not insofar as everything he did, but since he was practically the founder of their form of Leninism, is important to their ideology and so is supported due to that.

Your point of view makes sense, but I think that Leftist leaders should be role models of peace and nonviolence, but placing blame without offering a valid alternative is indeed counterproductive. I'll do further research on the subject of Stalin's policies.

Edit: There are apparently a lack of facts to prove either side of the question. I think what's important now is to acknowledge any mistakes previous leaders made, and learn from them.

peace and nonviolence? not to sound derogatory, but that is a very liberal perspective founded on bourgeois individualism, and is entirely incompatible with the idea of class struggle in general and marxism-leninism in specific. before focusing your research on criticisms of stalin, it may prove more fruitful to deepen your understanding of marxism so that any criticisms you maintain will be more well-founded.

I agree that I should research more, but are you saying that the transition to a Communist society would have to include violence, or that a Communist society itself would be violent (which I highly doubt is the case)?

are you saying that the transition to a Communist society would have to include violence

Let's go to the governments and corporations and kindly ask the capitalists “Please, sir, can I just take control of your means of production, and wither away the State in the process? Pretty pelase!”

Of course there's violence in the transition to communism. The power has to be taken, and the transitory State, according to Marx (the dictatorship of the proletariat) is no more than the exercise of violence against the anti-revolutionary forces (e.g. capitalists) in order to defend the revolution. Revolutionary violence is legitimate because we have suffered oppression and violence from the capitalists since always, and it's impossible to take the power without violence (see what happened to Allende when he used an all-democratic method for socialism without fighting the opposition).

There's never been a syndicalist state. Leninists, on the other hand, enjoyed the support of one of the most powerful nations in history for nearly a century. It's no surprise that the side with vastly more resources has been more successful at propagandizing.

You do realize that the Bourgeoisie couldn't continue without workers, right?

What?? Shit, really? Damn. How have I, a communist, not realized this by now? Wow.

Joking aside, syndicalism is not and cannot be the entirety of revolution, but can be a useful tool in destabilizing the relationship between the working class and the means of production. Its limitation lies in that it restructures work but does not necessarily halt the flow of capital and does little to wrest capital from the hands of the ruling class. Mass line organization and protracted people's war remain, in my opinion, the main vehicles of revolutionary struggle, although it would be simple and perhaps prudent to utilize syndicalism or somesuch form of it as part of the organization process.

"A clean break from history" means that Marx wanted to essentially leave behind the liberal structure of society to that time. He offered a radical solution to the problems of society, and it was one which he did not think could be accomplished by liberal politics.

keep in mind that both of those subs are heavily censored and adhere to specific doctrinal parameters. There exist dissenting or conflicting opinions only within the guidelines that the mods there rigorously maintain.

anyone who is not ML or MLM approved eventually gets banned. So most left coms, trotskyites, luxembourg ppl, anti-hegelian marxists, anti leninists anti stalinists anti maoists etc., are eventually banned or have their comments deleted.

no i have seen people who are marxists get deleted or banned merely for expressing left com views or anti hegelian views. I'm not a marxist but I'm interested in marxism and its history. Last time i was banned i literally politely asked for a citation. that was enough.

Yeah. it seems pretty reasonable to seek a citation. I've seen comments deleted for posting conflicting information, even if from a marxist source. which seems like a bad policy. But I've also seen really ridiculous comments deleted, poorly cited or not at all. Personally, i would suggest that having countervailing opinions present furthers progress and dialogue. It's a good thing to be reminded of challenging opinions, stupid or otherwise. But, a communism sub reddit does not mean it's characteristic of communism, it will take on elements from its moderators and their interpretation. as far as i can see, the idea is to have a place for "communists" of most sects to have a posting platform that is free from the debate that they prefer to go on subreddits such as this and 101, as it gets repetitive. It's somewhat fascinating to observe how the directions of these particular subeddits in corresponding to actual communist parties and publications goes. there is definitely an online soviet revival culture, which is interesting for a number of reasons... for better or worse. and i think that is visible in most online groups dawning the term "communism".

Again, Marxists of all tendencies are allowed to post so long as they follow the rules. From my experience on reddit, most left-communists are incredibly sectarian, which violates the rules. Not all of them are, though. Search "left-communism" in the /r/communism search bar and you'll find plenty of discussions engaging with left-communists.

There is a difference between sectarianism and critique. The former is what you always do, latching onto buzzwords like "Stalinists" and "tankies" without having anything meaningful to say. The latter includes threads like this, this, and this. See the difference?

I. This is a Marxist forum. II. This forum is not anarchist*. Anarchists already have many forums and are perhaps the most sizeable radical leftist and communist community on reddit. *nor is it anarcho-communist, autonomist, etc. III. Refrain from recommending Kropotkin, Chomsky or other anarchist authors. Those interested in anarchist reading can go ask for it in anarchist forums, and other leftist places on reddit and the rest of the internet. IV. Refrain from saying anarchism is also communism (everyone already knows). V. This forum is not for capitalists, nor does it aim to educate or convert them.

We heard for many decades that the USSR's gulags were death camps, but the actual info from soviet documents showed about 95-97% survival ratings, and those killed include executed nazi soldiers, common alleged criminals, etc. Plus the massive spike in death tolls was in the middle of WW2- exactly when resources were limited & when any captured/surrendered Nazis were being executed.

ie, we were all lied to. The USSR 1940s "courts" may have been a sham, but the same is true in the USA- ask anyone black.

His claim is simple bullshit, and I invite any reader to follow the link and read it on their own terms.

Gulag camp mortality rates appear to be anything around 15% to 29% in the 1930's. To get to 5% survival figures you have to average out right into the 1950's and accept a whole bunch of other caveats; read translated link to investigate more.

So, in a previous thread where you stuck like glue to the 98% figure despite having no evidence at all and constantly insulting me for suggesting it might around 95%-97% .... now it seems you agree with me?

Again, I have read reports of the soviet documents which said 98%. It's bookmarked somewhere & I might use that figure once I find it.

I'll make this really simple for you:

The death toll includes killing many nazi soldiers. They were literally killing nazi mass-murderers, and conservatives try to use those deaths as propaganda (hoping to trick people into assuming it was all innocent victims.)

Well, at least you now admit you can't find that figure, that's a start. A little investigation (you, should perhaps check your sources a little better) shows me that the source you supply, tells us a lot more about the death rate. Foe example, the Russian reports states that although deaths are recorded, the original papers use a lot of euphemisms - for example, a huge number people are recorded as "fled", but this was probably really deaths. When actual figures are recorded by the NKVD at the time, we get wildly different figures:

1931, 17% mortality rate in northern regions

1932, 28% mortality rate

1938, 3% of population held, but 29% of all deaths (nearly 10x mortality rate)

First that's cherry picking. Their prisons had years with much lower mortality rates, which is why the survival rating generally was something like 95-98%.

Plus, of course you're just illiterate. eg saying "3% of population held" & other inaccurate assertions.

Really it said "3% of the adult population of Russia at the age of 15 to 59 years"

To understand this, consider that the US has about 1% of it's population (wrongly) in prisons. Mostly drug charges, & practically none of them had a legitimate trial. This is despite easily having the wealth to give everyone a legitimate trial. The US could easily afford to record all of people's conversations with police & so on to protect them from false accusations & "confessions" etc.

But they purposely don't, to not give poor people actual/legit trials.

"The United States has the largest prison population in the world,[3][4] and the second-highest per-capita incarceration rate, behind Seychelles "

So you are agreeing with 3 of those points and pick out a fairly minor point in one (we still get the headline 10x mortality rate), would that be right?

Of course I pick out information. But I think it is you who cherry-pick, because if you read the report it quite clearly sums up that the headline figure of around the high 90's of survival is almost certainly not true.

As an alternate, feel free to cherry-pick your own figures from that report. Be my guest. You might find that the best thing to do would be to pick the figures you already stated - figures upon which your source states are highly likely to be false.

To understand this, consider that the US [...]

I don't care what the mortality rate of the USA is. The simple fact is, the figures you give are almost certainly wrong, as shown by the very link you gave me.

I don't believe soviet documents to be truly perfect or honest. However record keepers would actually want high numbers of prisoners to thus get more funds for keeping them. And thus would want to count as many people as possible. While at the same time record keepers would also want to hide some things. So they would not be perfectly accurate.

I wish you were exaggerating but I once went to a talk by a Maoist, who spent two hours arguing for Gadaffi, North Korea, and contemporary China and Russia on the basis that everyone has to 'pick a side' and either support the global south or oppose it.

Because none of these apologists have ever seen somebody murdered in real life. Most of them have never even been to a current or former socialist country. It is a disgusting position to take and I try to be empathetic in hoping that they'll pull their heads out one day and educate themselves.